California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case,
earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.

Disclaimer: I, personally, could not care less about this issue. It does not affect me in any way, regardless of the outcome. And, if those supporters
of Prop 8 were completely honest, this ruling will not affect them either.

Everyone should realize Prop 8 did not prohibit homosexual relationships. It merely prohibited California Counties from issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples. With that in mind, I have a few questions for those who are taking the stance of "equal protection" as related to obtaining a
marriage license, which is the basis for Judge Walker's decision.

1) According to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk a person is required to
present "proof of identity and age documents". If a person does not possess "proof" or chooses to not present that proof, should the license be
issued? If not, isn't that discriminating against him/her? Is that person not entitled to "equal protection"?

2) Again, in L.A. County, if a person presents "proof of identity" written in a foreign language, it must be accompanied by a written English
translation. If the license is denied, because of this clause, is that not discriminatory? "Equal protection"?

3) "The parties must be unmarried". If each individual is entitled to "equal protection" in matters of marriage licenses, how is it
"Constitutional" to prohibit polygamy? Why should a person be subjected to the expense of attorney's fees and court costs, to dissolve a previous
marriage, before obtaining a new license? Discriminatory?

4) In L.A. County, a person under the age of 18 must have parent, guardian or government (court) consent to obtain a marriage license. Are "minors"
not entitled to "equal protection" as it relates to marriage licenses? What about two 17 year olds? Two 13 year olds? A 13 year old and a 23 year
old? A 13 year old and a 63 year old?

Just saying, such claims of "equal protection" should be presented cautiously. Who should be empowered to set the boundaries? A majority of voters?
A single, lifetime appointment Judge? An elected Judge? Nine lifetime appointment Judges? Perhaps, no one?

Not arguing the case, just setting the table with bowls full of thought!

By the way, maybe there is more than meets the eye, in this ruling. (This is a conspiracy site, after all)

It appears marriage licenses provide significant revenue to California counties. By what margin will that amount increase, with licenses being issued
to same-sex couples? I'd be willing to bet the county authorities have already speculated on that number.

5) What if a couple is indigent and incapable of paying the $90 fee? "Equal protection"?

Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the
case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.

The judge would clearly has a financial interest should he marry the same sex.

As Homosexuals are denied those married rights as of right now under federal law.

Did you notice my placing the term "lawfully" in quotations? It is yet to be determined. In my opinion, the ruling of a single Judge is not the
end-all, be-all.

But, if you read this section of the Constitution of the State of California, the "law" was "Constitutionally" enacted...

ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 10. (a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is
filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed
from going into effect.

To me the whole ethics issue boils down to in criminal cases and such, when people involved may be an acquaintance of a judge or related to them. I
am pretty sure a homosexual judge can do his job just fine. His sexual preference should not be an indicator of bias, especially considering he must
interpret the constitution fairly, which seems to be what he is doing. Just my 2 cents

It will be found constitutional as marriage is a State's right, not a right guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of what this one judge says.

There could be a legal basis on the Commerce Clause as it applies to multiple states at one time, but in regards to this one issue; California as a
State has the right to ban homosexual marriages - will stand.

No you are the one that missed the point. If this were an issue of interracial marriage no one could possibly be qualified to make a decision on the
case because according to you they could possibly benefit financially from being able to marry someone outside their race.

It would be exactly the same thing the only difference being one is discriminatory based on race the other is discriminatory based on sexual
orientation. Both are wrong.

Are not all the laws regarding marriage discriminating against those that are single? Why should married persons get a tax break?

Marriage is a contract to produce children. Homosexual couples cannot do that. If there are no children then marriage is not needed. Homosexual
couples with children are a strange creation, now being done with artificial insemination and surrogate mothers.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.